O/T - Clemens On 60 Minutes

[Archive]

Posted By: Bill

Yes, people that are sociopaths can pass those exams. I read somewhere in a book about sociopaths that statistically, 1 in 25 people are sociopaths. It's not solely a label for murderers and criminals.

However, also take into account a person that grew up in a culture where lying occurs very frequently. It is nothing new to them, thus they would not show any reaction on a test.

Change your socks, drink water, and drive on.

[Archive]

Posted By: Kenny Cole

Maybe I'm missing something, but if I hire a polygraph examiner as a consulting expert to perform a polygraph on my client, why do I have to pony that up? I would think that isn't generally discoverable. At least in the 10th Circuit, where I practice, under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 (and the Oklahoma state equivalent), I think I have a pretty solid objection to even responding to a discovery request asking whether or not one has been performed on the basis that it constitutes trial preparation materials or falls under the conulting expert exception. Its almost impossible even to determine the identity of a consulting expert here. I don't know how it is in the 9th or 2nd Circuits though.

That being said, I've kept a few polygraphs out of evidence when they were the basis of an insurance claim denial, but I've never chosen to have a client undergo one. Perhaps I'm uninformed about the discovery ramifications. Why is the fact that you've decided, as an attorney, to have a client undergo one, for your own use and evaluation, discoverable? I don't see it.

Kenny Cole

edited to make a tense change and hopefully thereby avoid a beating from Barry, lol

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Kenny- it's so entertaining to watch lawyers argue on the board that a small grammatical error would fly under my radar screen.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I just wish there was some way for me to catch lawyer billable hours on the board . Love the discussion guys. For the record...I wrote some gobbly gook that was about a paragraph long and was meaning to say what Todd said in his first post on the subject but I didn't hit the respond button. For Clemens to take the polygraph it would be a lose-lose, no matter what way it turned out. Just like the other issue about DWI, where I said a good lawyer wouldn't tell his drunk client to take a breathalyzer (I am not condoning drunk driving), I think this is a similar situation. Something about incriminating yourself with no possible favorable outcome......

edited grammar but it's still not so good...

[Archive]

Posted By: Corey R. Shanus

IF (i) McNamee doesn't wilt under Congressional questioning, (ii) the allegation that to save his skin he had to implicate Clemens is proven to be false (i.e., the truth independent of its substance was enough) and (iii) Pettitte at the Congressional hearings does not somehow come to Clemens rescue, then I believe in the court of public opinion Clemens is toast. There are just too many things that do not add up for him -- e.g., why would McNamee lie; Pettitte's corroboration of McNamee's allegations as regards to him; the unprecedented (except for Bonds) on-the-field accomplishments at such an advanced age; having a strength coach administer injections at the player's residence (as opposed to a team physician at the team facility); bloatedness in his face, and on and on. At that point, assuming a failed polygraph test cannot be used to implicate him on a perjury charge, I see very little downside in him taking it if in fact he is being truthful. Suppose he fails? He just sunk a bit lower than where he already is. That point, though, is already incredibly low. But putting aside the precise reliability of such a test, I think it's fair to say that the chances are that if it is properly and impartially administered, it will show Clemens to be truthful if in fact he is. Whether that likelihood is 51%, 73%, 90% or even higher, the odds any way you look at it would be in Clemens favor. If he should pass and the public really believes the test was honestly and competently administered, Clemens IMO has materially enhanced his public standing. And in the end, isn't that what it's all about to him? Or to put it another way, if Clemens in fact is telling the truth, at some point the upside of taking a polygraph test could seem to outweigh the downside.

On another point, I don't know how anybody else feels about the recorded telephone conversation between Clemens and McNamee, but to me it sure did not seem that McNamee took any delight in implicating Clemens; and did so only because he felt he HAD to to save his own skin. This of course leads back to the question whether McNamee was under the perception that he had to "deliver" Clemens. If in fact he had no such perception, he sure didn't come across as a guy who had any motivation whatsoever to finger Clemens. In fact, to the contrary, he seemed to have strong motivation to exonerate him.

[Archive]

Posted By: bill latzko

If I were forced to place a bet on whether Roger is "guilty" or not, I'd probably bet guilty. However, I hope that it is proven that he is telling the truth so all the experts on the forum who have already declared him guilty are proven wrong. Too bad we've reached a point where people are guilty until proven innocent.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

In the court of public opinion Clemens is already toast. Between the 60 Minutes interview and the taped phone conversation (not to mention his overall demeanor over the last few days), it is pretty obvious that Clemens right now is about as innocent as Mark McGwire and other fellow juicers. I think he is now desperate to save everything he has worked for his whole life, and when he becomes eligible for the Hall doesn't want to share the same fate as McGwire, and those who will follow him.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

The recorded call came off as desperate and slimy and did not convince anyone that Clemens is not a juicer. CLemens took advantage of a guy who was sad about his sick kid. Why didn't he simply straightforwardly ask McNamee "Why did you lie to Senator Mitchell about shooting me up with HGH, etc.?" Clemens was vague on purpose. And McNamee never claimed on tape that he lied to Mitchell. So, again, Clemens and his legal team made a mistake in the court of public opinion and he continues to sink.

Oh, and Marion Jones (who is about as tenth as significant of a story as Clemens) took and passed a polygraph test and also sued Victor Conte for defamation. In a high profile case such as this, Clemens has very little time in which to make a splash to counter public perception. So far he's failed miserably. I suppose McNamee could still self-destruct -- which is possible because he appears to be a nut -- but short of that Clemens appears to be toast. He comes off as arrogant, obnoxious and desperate while McNamee comes off as sad, pathetic and honest. And then there is the problem of all that corroborative and circumstantial evidence.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Bill, how about that you hope that Clemens is proven innocent so that it would be good for baseball -- not that 5 people on this forum would be proven wrong. I wouldn't want you to sound petty.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bill

Edited because I didn't realize Jeff was responding to a different Bill until after I already posted. My bad.
Change your socks, drink water, and drive on.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I think Jeff was addressing Bill Latzko.

[Archive]

Posted By: PC

McNamee has everything to lose by lying to implicate Clemens. We don't know the details about his immunity deal, but the few details in the Mitchell Report make one thing clear: McNamee's immunity deal applies only if he tells the truth. As such, McNamee will lose his immunity by lying to implicate Clemens, just as easliy as if he lied to protect Clemens.

Add to this that McNamee's allegations about Pettite were confirmed by Pettite, that Clemens was previously implicated by both Canseco and Jason Grimsley (neither of which, alone, is very persuasive), that he went from a .500 pitcher to Cy Young form with Toronto at exactly the same time that McNamee and Canseco were with Toronto, and that his recent contract "gymnastics" conveniently circumvented off-season drug testing, and it looks grim for the Roidket.

[Archive]

Posted By: MVSNYC

"The recorded call came off as desperate and slimy and did not convince anyone that Clemens is not a juicer. CLemens took advantage of a guy who was sad about his sick kid. Why didn't he simply straightforwardly ask McNamee "Why did you lie to Senator Mitchell about shooting me up with HGH, etc.?" Clemens was vague on purpose. And McNamee never claimed on tape that he lied to Mitchell. So, again, Clemens and his legal team made a mistake in the court of public opinion and he continues to sink."

Jeff- i agree completely with your accessment.

Clemens continues to sink, the call was slimy and didn't shed any great light on his situation.

[Archive]

Posted By: Pennsylvania Ted

Well, I dodged a lot of flak here for my initial post......

....."60 Minutes is not an objective News outfit. I don't trust them to report what is true. And, yes, Lie Detector's are not 100%
accurate and that was an agenda-driven question by that Wallace."

But it appears here that the majority opinion, after 100+ posts, is that Lie Detectors are unreliable and subjecting yourself to one is
a "LOSE-LOSE"" situation. And, don't tell me that 60 Minutes did not know this when they threw it at him ?

Look, I do not know if Clemens is guilty or not......but, this I know.....

In 1984 this 6:4 guy weighed 220.....he now weighs-in around 240. Gee, most would wish they only gained 9% of their 20's weight,
when they reached their mid-40's.

I was recently at my HS Reunion, all the muscle dudes lifting weights in HS were now big "blobs".

At this point the only obvious crime Clemens is guilty of....is in his choice in Lawyers. A better set of lawyers would have advised him
not to go on 60 Minutes, or engage in any press conferences.

JEFF L.....
You're a defense lawyer, you should offer your services to Clemens. I am sure you would be a 100% improvement over his current
counselors.

[Archive]

Posted By: pas

Clients do not always listen to their lawyers' advice, particuarly a client with as massive an ego as Roger Clemens. The blame may not lie with the lawyers.

[Archive]

Posted By: LetsGoBucs

"McNamee has everything to lose by lying to implicate Clemens. We don't know the details about his immunity deal, but the few details in the Mitchell Report make one thing clear: McNamee's immunity deal applies only if he tells the truth. As such, McNamee will lose his immunity by lying to implicate Clemens, just as easliy as if he lied to protect Clemens."

--------------

I would just point out that your assuming that he was offered immunity upfront in exchange for "telling the truth". I would offer that it is not a stretch that there were negotiations regarding what he could or would "deliver" in exchange for his testimony.

Trainer: "I gave Andy Pettite HGH twice"

FBI: " You think THATS going to keep you out of jail??? I want a name!!!"

I don't have any leaning in terms of liking or disliking Roger Clemens. I don't know if he used these drugs or not. But I do greatly value the idea that you are innocent until proven guilty.

I agree with the poster that pointed out that Clemens looks like a middle aged man (at least to me he does). I also have a friend thats built like Clemens, facially has changed like Clemens, and is a similar age and I doubt seriously that my friend is using steroids and HGH.

The only other thing I'd point out is that at work I've watched dozens if not hundreds of people lie....mainly out of fear for their livelihoods. I can easily imagine a man making up lies to avoid going to jail.

If he used them I wish he would simply admit it. If he didn't use them I hope that somehow the truth comes out. I would again just point out that he was wrongly accused just last year.

And people wonder why fewer and fewer kids play the GAME of baseball......When it was a game indeed.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Well, you guys can stop arguing over it as Clemens has finally admitted what has been obvious for years now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L40r1XKtgrk

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve Murray

Now Dan, that is fn priceless!!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: peter ullman

that is freakin' hilarious...I knew he was lying!

pete ullman

[Archive]

Posted By: Robert

I have always thought of Clemens as a head hunter. A truly great pitcher like Koufax didn't have to throw at people's heads. I don't care if he is lying or not, and he likely is. He's a bad actor. Pete ought to be in the hall.

[Archive]

Posted By: Noel

Robert,

Just out of curiosity why should Pete be in the Hall of Fame? Because he is a better actor than Clemens? Now I will be the first to admit that Clemens is a horrible actor and is sowing the seeds of his own demise. He wants desperately to salvage what is left of his career and some degree of dignity. Pete knew what he did was illegal, knew the consequences, and still chose to make the decisions he did (and what is even more nauseating is the refusal to acknowledge or take any accountability for his actions). Seems to me he cheated baseball and is getting his just desserts, as is Clemens if he is found guilty.

[Archive]

Posted By: Robert

I didn't say Clemens shouldn't be in the Hall. He and Pete both should. If we keep people out for bad character the place would be 1/2 empty. I don't care if he does steroids. Is that different than taking an IV if you're crampimg? A house divided cannot stand applies here too.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Is taking steroids different from taking an IV for dehydration? That's a joke right?

[Archive]

Posted By: Robert

Yep. Let him both in. No joke. IV fluids are no different in principle.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bill

Now that is just comical.

IV for dehydration=steroid use.

One is needed, the other is not. One is legal, the other is not. I see no similarities.

Change your socks, drink water, and drive on.

[Archive]

Posted By: Corey R. Shanus

One can cause premature death or induce suicidal depression, the other does not.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Procuring one without a valid perscription can land you in jail. The other cannot.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

Drugs are only legal when they are obtained and used legally. It is not just the drug itself that defines legality, and many drugs are both legal and illegal. Many medical drugs and techniques are dangerous and can only be applied legally in a very narrow set of circumstances. An example is chemotherapy. Even the medical doctor can be prosecuted for applying the drugs and techniques in other areas.

There are legitimate and legal medical uses for steroids, but steroids are illegal for purely athletic reasons-- ala to run faster or hit a home run further. Additionally, even legal use of steroids requires that it be prescribed by a medical doctor. Even if a ball player says he had a good reason to use steroids (injury), the drugs would still be illegal without the prescription. Which begs the question of why, if use was legitimate as claimed (injury), this ball player didn't consult a medical doctor and get a prescription-- in particular as it makes common sense that a millionaire athlete would want a serious athletic injury treated through a medical doctor. The answer usually is a because a medical doctor wouldn't have prescribed the drugs as their use would not be legitimate.

Why did the Cleveland pitcher get his "pituitary gland problems" treated by a dentist? Presumably because no M.D. would have written the prescription. And, oh yeah, the dentist soon after had his license suspended for prescription fraud.

Interestingly, Clemens said he used Lidocaine, a painkiller that can only be used legally when prescribed. Count on it that a future question will be whether or not he had prescription. I suspect it's not difficult to get a Lidocaine prescription and it wouldn't surprise me if Clemens had it legitimately prescribed (painkiller for an athlete sounds like reasonable use). However, if he didn't have the prescription that likely would cook his goose at slander trial, as it would demonstrate that, even by his own story, he knowingly provided and was injected with illegal drugs (drugs used illegally) by the accused trainer.

[Archive]

Posted By: Robert

IV fluids can make for an unfair advantage. No joke.
No difference.

[Archive]

Posted By: MVSNYC

davidcycle-

you broke your old record of editing (11 times)...

new record: 18


congrats!

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

I'm all for letting Roger and Pete getting into the Hall, anytime they buy a ticket for admission. That is the only way either should be in.

It is open almost every day... closed Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Year's Day. The rest of the time, let 'em buy a ticket.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Interesting article in today's NY Times suggesting that Clemens and his team have botched the public relations war. Big surprise to anyone with a pulse.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/sports/baseball/13clemens.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=clemens&oref=slogin

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve

With that giant ego, Rog would have to enter through the loading dock. At any rate, he doesn't give a rat's ass about the HOF. (He just can't stop lying)

[Archive]

Posted By: Jodi Birkholm

I don't have enough time to read through these posts, so forgive me if it was said already:

I would be willing to see Pete Rose inducted if it would get Shoeless Joe in. Regardless of guilt, Rose was not betting AGAINST his own team. I'm not much for him on a personal level, but he always gave it his all as a player. Too much time has passed to know the real story on Jackson, and I for one am not concerned with theory or conjecture. Nor would I care if Cicotte would get in as a result of Jackson's induction.

Steroids are another matter entirely. I won't get into the fine details, but let it be said that I have no sympathy for anyone who enhances their already-stellar talent to get ahead.

That's all I have to say about that.

JB

[Archive]

Posted By: Alan

I have a related question: What things, advantages, money, notority, etc,... does a former athlete get if he gets elected into the HOF than a guy not in ? How important is it to the older guys to get in befor they're deceased ?

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve

I'm a big JJax fan, but realize he took the $5K. I'm a Weaver fan as well. Although Buck was less devious, he's still responsible for not outing the Fix. Both (and the others) should remain Hall outcasts imo.

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

Betting on your team only to win doesn't cut it...


The bookies are tipped off as to when you're NOT betting on your team. And if you get indebted to them (almost a certainty given time), then you're a target for them to suggest some dealing.

Gambling was the #1 taboo long ago, when efforts were made to legitimize our national game.

Pete can get into the Hall 362 days a year, with a ticket. Since this year is a leap year, he can buy his way in 363 days, one day at a time.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jodi Birkholm

This question has been brought up in many conversations I've had. There are a few factors to consider:

-It wouldn't matter too much to someone like Goose Gossage, who has been a regular on the show circuit for years. Nothing is going to change for him. He might try raising his prices, but this tactic would not help his case.

-If a guy like Ron Santo was inducted (and in a condition to make the rounds), he could make at least $75,000 a year, I imagine. Perhaps a little more, but certainly not less. At least for the first year or two of heavy traveling. After that, demand would dry up. Forgive my stating the obvious, but somebody like Santo could not get away with charging the exacerbated fees of a Mays-caliber old-timer.

-The third scenario comes into play when your question is directed to a more modern player who might not be inclined to sign unless a pile of money was placed in front of him (feel free to insert player name here; the list will only grow longer over time). In this case, fans will be charged $150+ for an autograph easily purchased on eBay for 20% of that amount. This scenario has transpired with players such as Yaz over the last few years. Sure, the "thrill" of being all but ignored by Yaz while he signs your 1967 BoSox commemorative shoelace might be worth the $150 to a diehard fan, but I'd take the off-condition single-signed ball on eBay for $25. If McGwire were to be inducted, demand for his signature would increase (although likely not to late 1990's standards). He would definitely be charging around $250 for flats and balls, and my guess is that his annual income would increase by at least $750,000 (and that's for a pithy 3,000 sigs/year!). It goes without saying that all of the above is pure speculation.

[Archive]

Posted By: MVSNYC

"What things, advantages, money, notority, etc,... does a former athlete get if he gets elected into the HOF than a guy not in ? How important is it to the older guys to get in befor they're deceased?"


Alan- i'd imagine one could make some more money once elected (show circuit, autographs, apperances, etc...), BUT i think the most important aspect of being inducted into the HOF is the simple fact that you are now immortalized forever, you become a member of a very elite club, the best of the best...there's no monetary value to that...it's priceless.

clemens claims he doesn't care about the HOF...that is pure Bulls**t!

getting the call for entry has got to be one of the most incredible moments of a former player's life...

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

....especially to a guy like Clemens who watches every record, knows every pitcher ahead of him in wins, etc.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

Getting into the Hall of Fame is important to EVERY retired player (yes, I said EVERY, as in not one exception). This is why rich and successful guys like Rose, Gossage, Rice, Sutter bitch and moan and beg and plead when they aren't elected. This is why he-man millionaires who have won countless awards, including MVPs and World Series rings, cry when they learn they've been elected and who often say their only regret is that their parents in Heaven weren't alive to witness their enshrinement.

I can only put it one honest way: Clemens saying he doesn't care if he's elected into the Hall of Fame only shows one thing-- he can look into the camera and lie. The problem for him and his public case is most people know it's a lie. Many of these very baseball fans remember well just a couple of years ago when Clemens would talk about what team hat he should be wearing on his Cooperstown plaque. To most people, planning your wardrobe eight years before an event sounds like obsession not ambivalence.

[Archive]

Posted By: Fred C

Luckily for Clemens there are only 7 names to memorize (whose ahead of him in LT wins). Maybe Maddux is going to make it 8 next season.

[Archive]

Posted By: howard

Ditto what David just wrote. As a kid Goose was one of my favorites but I was really turned off by his whiny/angry Hall of Fame campaign.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

So much for Clemens having nothing to hide, ever never:

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=Ai3GHqw7S7AN5FlITEwH7F85nYcB?slug=ap-steroids-clemens&prov=ap&type=lgns

The PR debacle continues!

[Archive]

Posted By: Ken W.

We were all to blame for the Roid-Boy era. I remember just accepting that every team had one of THOSE GUYS. They weren't very quick, swung for the fences, and struck out a bunch - and it was just part of the game. I'm sick of the hypocrisy! There have always been reasons why statistics have been skewed one way or another in baseball. But historians keep track of such things, are aware of them, and judge players accordingly, which is what will happen with the folks who put up huge power numbers in the 90's and the 00's. They'll see a big stat, and rationalize the peculiarities involved. I truly believe that the best players of any era should be honored with HOF induction. We can't ignore that this happened under all of our noses. Everyone must simply remember that big power numbers in this era just don't mean as much as during other times. I am truly glad public attention will finally attenuate the practice of using PED's. But we should stop vilifying the workers, even if they are millionaires.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

I believe that there are others in addition to the abusing players who share blame. However, considering there were many players who did not use the drugs who just as easily could have have, the users should receive the lion's share of the blame. The users happily accepted the benefits of the drugs, didn't they? They happily accepted the bloated numbers and paychecks and awards that would have gone to non-users, didn't they? Users intended to bump non-users from rosters, didn't they?

Taking steroids is like a pact with the Devil. In a pact with the Devil you gain what you desire, but the Devil returns for his half of the bargain. Folks like Bonds and Marion Jones got what they desired, and are now realizing the downside.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

As I was reading the paper today in which various lawyers weighed in on the mess Clemens made of his life as well as the awful advice of Rusty Hardin, one lawyer opined to the press that Hardin "is the type of lawyer who gets you out of trouble when your prison sentence is up." Of course, the writer pointed out that when the Mitchell Report came out Clemens was not under any criminal investigation and would have remained in the clear if he had just kept his mouth shut instead of going on 60 Mins, lying under oath, bringing the lawsuit against McNamee, etc.

This was so obviously clear to anyone with a clue what would happen once Clemens started his insane PR offensive with that dopey lawyer at his side (you remember, the guy who said that Clemens would "eat" "the lunch" of the IRS agent who would be investigating him).

Here's what I wrote two months ago:

"Two definites: Clemens will testify in front of Congress; and Clemens will lie in front of Congress."

Why is it that everyone with half a brain could see this coming? Clemens will surely be indicted now. If he could ever hire a lawyer with a clue, he'd run into the Department of Justice, beg forgivenness, avoid indictment and agree to come clean and apologize to everyone for the lies. He could blubber away and downplay the true extent of his steroid use and I think the public would mostly forgive him. Even now if he's somehow acquitted of the perjury charges which he will be hit with, his life is still destroyed. Wouldn't it have been the better course to just shut up when the Mitchell Report came out? Or at least to have his lawyer call up Pettite's lawyer to find out what Andy was going to do and say?

[Archive]

Posted By: CN

Jeff I couldn,t agree with you more. Rusty Hardin is one of the most incompetent attorneys I have seen. He should have had his client shut up from day one. I am actually starting to feel sorry for Clemens but then I remember what a liar and cheat he is. CN

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

No doubt most of this was Clemens' idea, and a lawyer can't stop a client from doing what the client wants to do, even if what the client wants to do is a bad idea. Of course, a lawyer can tell the client he should find a another lawyer, or not have been retained in the first place if he had major problems the client's plan of action.

If Clemens is ever convicted of perjury, this will go down as one of the worst public relations campaigns in history (and make no mistake that it was a PR campaign). Not only did it make the client look 3x worse to the public, but led to criminal conviction! That's on the order of someone telling you her cooking's so bad that she was once convicted of it.

[Archive]

Posted By: boxingcardman

As Jeff can no doubt attest to too, sometimes a client will not take your advice no matter how much sense you make. I had a client once who retained me to write a subcontract that would conform to his insurance requirements. I did, he didn't use it (because he was afraid the subs would not sign it), and sure as hell he got sued on that project for bad subcontractor work. He came back and I had a heck of a time wrestling his insurer into a coverage position to defend him because he hadn't used the subcontract I wrote. Clients often think they know better. I'd say about 50% of my real estate and construction litigation stems from clients who thought that they knew better...I'm sure a man like Clemens, who has been at the pinnacle of a profession, made millions, and achieved worldwide fame, has a bit of an ego and figured he was too smart to get caught. Stupid.

Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc